Lindquist v. Cnty. of Nicollet
Decision Date | 15 November 2021 |
Docket Number | 52-CV-21-16 |
Parties | Rodney Lindquist, St. Peter Hospitality LLC, Petitioner, v. County of Nicollet, Respondent. |
Court | Tax Court of Minnesota |
This consolidated matter came on the motion of Nicollet County to dismiss pursuant to Minnesota Statutes section 278.05 subdivision 6, before The Honorable Wendy S. Tien, Chief Judge of the Minnesota Tax Court.
Rodney Lindquist, St. Peter Hospitality, LLC, Petitioner, appeared through Rodney Lindquist.
Megan E. Gaudette Coryell, Assistant County Attorney, represents respondent Nicollet County.
ORDER DENYING COUNTY'S MOTION TO DISMISS
The County moved to dismiss this property tax petition on the grounds petitioner did not timely and completely provide information required by Minnesota Statutes section 278.05 subdivision 6 (2020).
The court, having heard and considered the arguments of the parties and counsel, and upon all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, now makes the following:
1. The County's motion is denied.
2. Not later than thirty days after the date of this Order, St Peter Hospitality LLC must make disclosures to the County in accordance with the following clauses of Minnesota Statutes section 278.05, subdivision 6(a), unless already provided:
For purposes of this Order, "assessment date" means the assessment date January 2, 2020, for taxes payable in 2021. Failure to make the above disclosures within the time specified in this Order will result in dismissal with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
On January 8, 2021, Rodney Lindquist, St. Peter Hospitality, LLC, filed a property tax petition alleging that the estimated market value of the subject property is unequally assessed when compared with other properties.[1] The petition refers to a subject property, PID No. 19.667.0010, located at 1301 Old Minnesota Avenue in St. Peter, which the petition describes as income producing.[2] The petition also states that the assessment date of the subject property is January 2, 2021, for taxes payable in 2021.[3] The petition attaches a copy of a statement for "Proposed Taxes 2021," stating an estimated market value in taxes payable year 2020 of $1, 457, 800 and an estimated market value in taxes payable year 2021 of $3, 913, 000.[4]
On January 29, 2021, the Assistant Nicollet County Attorney sent Mr. Lindquist on behalf of St. Peter Hospitality LLC a letter (the "January 29 letter") setting forth the County's general approach to tax cases. The letter states, in relevant part:
This Office will initially forego formal discovery to gather [data], assuming you share our goal to efficiently settle this case without going to trial and you will cooperate with the Assessor's Office's requests. Additionally, you may be required to timely provide to the Assessor's Office certain specific data on income producing property pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6.[5]
On June 2, 2021, according to Lorna Sandvik, the Nicollet County Assessor, Mr. Lindquist provided:
"Trusting I would hear back if I was 'missing something' (re; my June 2nd email) I took it that my submittals on June 2nd were correct and the August deadline was met."[16] Mr. Lindquist included the 2019 financial statements with his response.[17]
A hearing on the County's motion was held by Zoom on October 13, 2021. At the hearing, the County acknowledged that the petition stated the same assessment date and taxes payable date.[18] Mr. Lindquist reiterated the statements from his written response that he found "very confusing" the use of the term "assessment date."[19] He expressed confusion about the timing of tax payments versus "assessment date."[20] He also expressed his view "the assessor's office slipped one by me" through the July 22 email, which asked whether petitioner was open "with no mention or reference of any assessment dates."[21]
Minnesota Statutes section 278.05, subdivision 6, sometimes called the "mandatory disclosure rule," specifies that, in cases where the petitioner contests the valuation of income-producing property, certain information must be provided to the county assessor no later than August 1 of the taxes payable year. Failure to submit the required documentation by the August 1 deadline results in automatic dismissal of the petition unless an exception applies. Minn. Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(b); Wal-Mart Real Estate Bus. Tr. v. Cnty. of Anoka, 931 N.W.2d 382, 386 (Minn. 2019). "[T]he purpose of the [mandatory disclosure rule] is to provide information that would be useful to the determination of value…." Kmart Corp. v. Cnty. of Becker, 639 N.W.2d 856, 859 (Minn. 2002); see also 78th St. OwnerCo, LLC v. Cnty. of Hennepin, 813 N.W.2d 409, 413 (Minn. 2012) (). In other words, the mandatory disclosure rule ensures the taxing authority receives "all information a petitioner actually possesses relevant to application of the income approach to valuing real property." Sadat v. Cnty. of Scott, No. 70-CV-12-8404, 2015 WL 410434, at *1 (Minn. T.C. Jan. 29, 2015) (citing Irongate Enters., Inc. v. Cnty. of St. Louis, 736 N.W.2d 326, 330-31 (Minn. 2007)).
The August 1 deadline in the mandatory disclosure rule contains two exceptions. The first applies when the failure to provide the required information to the county assessor was due to the unavailability of the information at the time that the information was due. Minn. Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(b)(1). The second applies when the petitioner "was not aware of or informed of the requirement to provide the information." Minn. Stat. § 278.05, subd. 6(b)(2). If the petitioner proves it was not aware of or informed of the requirement to provide the information, the petitioner has an additional 30 days to provide the information from the time it became aware of or were informed of the requirement. Id. Failure to do so requires dismissal of the petition. Id. at subd. 6(b). Delay in providing information required by section 278.05, subdivision 6 need not cause actual prejudice to the county to result in dismissal. Kmart, 639 N.W.2d at 859 ( )(citing BFW Co. v. Cnty. of Ramsey, 566 N.W.2d 702, 704-05 (Minn. 1997)).
The mandatory disclosure rule requires that the petitioner provide information to the county assessor concerning income-producing property, and places the burden of doing so on the petitioner. See Wal-Mart, 931 N.W.2d at 386-87. A petitioner may not decline, for example, to provide information required by the mandatory disclosure rule based on a subjective belief the...
To continue reading
Request your trial